Talk:Our Eternal Enemy
I do not like this book at all. It is a petty you did not put your efforts in something else. You did not ask for my opinion, but I feel I need to tell you :| -- 17:04, August 25, 2010 (UTC) :You are free to tell me your opinion. After all, we live in a democracy with freedom of speech. Or do we not? Drabo13 17:06, August 25, 2010 (UTC) ::then why is it you want to exclude certain people from this freedom of speech? This is contradictory. -- 17:13, August 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Please stop incouraging him! If he was a real man he wouldn't use fake threats and intimidation to scare people! Marcus Villanova WLP 17:16, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Review Somebody should really do a review of this book and really BURN IT DOWN! Dr. Magnus 18:57, August 25, 2010 (UTC) :That would be easy, but I think he enjoys that too much. It would be nicer to 'socially kill his character' - we simply leave him out of all things we do. No-one votes for him, no-one talks to him, and no-one reads his (awfully stupid) publications unless you think you can get him blocked (again). 07:40, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Well of course we can get him blocked again. Marcus has already gathered tons of evidence against him and Arthur is starting up a new trial, a massive trial which will leave him exiled from the site forever and all his characters killed so as to prevent them from ever returning to the site. Maybe you could write an article in the newspaper about some crazy mother****** who caused some disturbance on the site and who has been submitted to a mental institution? Dr. Magnus 07:45, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, I think the trial will be good enough this time to (1) block the user for a very long time and (2) lock his charachter(s) up in one of our detention facilities. Also, I don't think fascism is a recognized mental disorder (yet). 07:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC) As Einstein put it: "Nationalism is an infantile disease". I don't agree with him, but if you change nationalism for "fascism", then yes, it is an infantile diseace. Dr. Magnus 07:52, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :There isn't a single nation in the world (either know or in the past) that deserves the praise of nationalism. Nations are made by people, and people are fundamentally all the same. 07:59, August 26, 2010 (UTC) While this may be true, there is always one nation that deserves it, your own nation that would be. Very few people have nationalist feelings for a nation that is not their own; I like my country because it is my own country, my family and friends live their and I feel at home. That makes me biased towards my own country, often without knowing it. Its only natural. Some people take it to the next level and say their nation is superior to all other nations, however. Dr. Magnus 08:06, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::I love my country too, but I still manage to see its (many) flaws. I would never want to 'die for my country' and most of all I wanted a stronger integration in the EU. I'm Belgian, but not a Belgian nationalist (I don't think we even have those anymore, they're all Flemish now). 08:08, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I would be willing to die for my country, or my family. I just hope the opportunity never presents itself! Dr. Magnus 08:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Controversy I can't edit the page cuz its protected, but can some admin write a bigger part of criticism of the book and why it is illegal to sell, buy or purchase the book? Its a bad book, it needs to made very clear. So that people don't believe some of the bullshit it tells you. Dr. Magnus 17:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC) : The book will get banned after the trial! Marcus Villanova WLP 17:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Sounds good. But there is no need in actually deleting it, nor should we delete the IGP-page. Keep them for "historical purposes". And kill the characters of Drabo. Dr. Magnus 17:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC) : Agreed, focus on IRC now! Marcus Villanova WLP 17:28, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Reply On the special request of Dr.Magnus I've made a small list of flaws in this work: * No clearly defined terminology (race, ethnicity, religion, nationality??) which is a sign of sloppiness and populism. * Stereotypical representation of Jews without statistics; this partially falls together with the previous issue. * Obscure talk about conspiracies without proof and no attention at all for the complexion of certain topics. * The untruthful representation of historical and political practices like lobbying or zionism. * Using isolated, non-representative cases as 'proof'; a double mistake! I also rewrote and restyled most of the article to make it more fit. 12:25, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :You did a great job! Especially the funny cover which ridicules the writer; you rendered the book harmless, basically. Dr. Magnus 13:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm glad you like it, I kinda worried some people would misunderstand the fun from my part. 14:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :You took the guy from the "... for dummies"-series! How can anyone not understand that's meant to be funny? Dr. Magnus 14:19, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :Yep tis funny! Marcus Villanova WLP 16:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Zionism The section on zionism does, although its grossly far fetched, make some sense. I am not a big fan of generalising people but we can all agree that zionism has brought nothing but harm to the world. Wise men such as ex-president Carter and DUtch ex-premier Dries van Agt share my opinion. BastardRoyale 12:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :I do too, the policy of the Israelian government towards Palestines is inhumane. Israel should become a secular state instead of a jewish one. Especially the support of 'human rights advocate' USA is painfully hypocrite. I'm anti-zionist because basing your state on a religious community is in se asocial. 16:25, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::That doen't even make a point other than 'Well Drabo's an ass but a smart ass and his ideology is kinda-good'. All I'm saying Marcus Villanova WLP 16:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::The difference is that we are against the policy and he is against the people. 17:17, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::Same thing, thing is even tho i'm half-jewish, IRL I don't give a shit because I'm more of an athiest. Marcus Villanova WLP 17:22, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::I disagree; my attitude towards the state of Israel is inspired by inclusion (we are all the same) while the attitude of anti-semites is based on exclusion (they are inferior). I don't hate jews, I hate religious people leading a sate according to principles that easily compare to apartheid. But you can't say that anymore these days; Karel De Gucht (commissar of the EU) lately criticized the stance of Israelis and all the sudden crazy boards and commissions declare him an anti-semite. Is it just me or what? 11:16, September 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::No arugment there. I hate people who fllaunt there rieligion. And I hate arguements over it. It's so stupid. Isreal is stupid, i'm not saying there shouldn't be a jewish free state but isreal is being kinda stupid latley. Marcus Villanova WLP 15:22, September 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::Kind stupid lately? It has been right from the beginning. To drive away indigenous population after 2000 years and build settlements on their ancestral grounds was never a good strategy to begin with. Neither was forcing the British out by terrorist acts nor was (and is) killing Palestinian women and children, treating them like animals and bombing red cross hospitals and killing refugee workers and foreign aid helpers. And using ally the US to veto every UN resolution against them. The state is unlawful, commits unlawful acts and breaks every law in the book. Still, they get away with it. Because of the Holocaust the Palestinians, who had nothing ti do with it, now have to pay. Its genocide. BastardRoyale 16:14, September 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::I wont go as far as calling it genocide, but they hold the record in breaking UN resolutions. 06:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::My dear comrade Medvedev, let us please be honest for the sake of Human Rights and General Kindness to all humanity. What is right is right, as what is wrong is wrong. Deliberately killing innocent Palestinian women, children and even babies is genocide. Murder, slaughter. Similar to the treatment of native Americans in our king’s beloved America. The Palestinians currently have less then 20% of their ancestral ground, Palestine (now called Israel) and even then the jews have the arrogance to build settlements there… on occupied soil! Gaza and the west bank are mere reservations, death camps even. And the world watches and does NOTHING. BastardRoyale 07:42, September 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Atrocities, yes. Occupation, in a way. Crimes against humanity, certainly. But genocide? Israel wants the Palestinians to shut up and let them build their Jewish state, but I don't believe the total eradication of the muslim population is the goal. 09:50, September 8, 2010 (UTC) Well The way Sjorsjkingma handled this might not be good, but I do believe a country like Lovia should ban publication like these. Yes, that would be censorship, but not doing so would be contribution to the spread of hate and providing a growing bottom for rascism. My idea is immediate destroying (=deleting) of any future rascist books and banning this - unfortunately already published - book. If you guys support this, I'll bring it to the first chamber. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:20, November 17, 2010 (UTC) :Should you not better take this to court? Article 2 of our Supreme Law (section 1.2) might come in handy. -- 17:26, November 17, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't know much about trials. Does someone else know much about this? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:08, November 17, 2010 (UTC) :::I filed a trial..I still want it. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:28, November 17, 2010 (UTC) ::::If you want to outlaw this book, Marcus, you better get a new, other trial, which asks to outlaw this book and which sues the author/editor. ::::@OWTB: Rather than taking this to court, as Sjèfferzoean suggested, you should take this to Congress. Add a sentence to Article 2.1.2 which forbids hate speech in publications. I would support such a proposal. 07:26, November 18, 2010 (UTC) :::::Do whatever you have to do but this must be deleted immediately as soon as possible. Apoo banaan 11:22, November 18, 2010 (UTC) ::::::@Dimi: Ok, I'll do that. @Apoo: well, it's already published... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:31, November 18, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Oos. This article is absolutely disgusting, and more practically I'm sure it violates Wikia's terms of use. I think we must remove the 'content' sections at the very least, and I think I would also be deletion of the entire page. --Semyon 16:53, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :I'm entire page deletion, but deleting the content sections. --OuWTB 17:01, June 3, 2015 (UTC) ::That seems logical. :o --Semyon 17:07, June 3, 2015 (UTC) entire page deletion. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:10, June 3, 2015 (UTC) I agree with Oos although personally it's only because of Wikia's terms of use. I believe in free speech no matter how much I disagree with it. KunarianTALK 18:25, June 3, 2015 (UTC) As Semyon said, this article is absolutely vile. I'm deletion Frijoles333 TALK 18:57, June 3, 2015 (UTC) I think bringing free speech into it clouds the situation. The author is quite free to go and post the material on Stormfront on a similar website, or even to buy advertising space in newspapers - I won't object. That's free speech è. However, the purpose of this wiki isn't to provide a platform for extreme views, and we don't have to tolerate it. --Semyon 19:15, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :I agree... This doesn't have to be about free speech, but rather about keeping with Wikia's terms of use, and maintaining the reputation of the wiki as a whole. Whilst whoever wrote this is entitled to their freedom of speech- although I believe this comes with a responsibility to not be hateful and disrespectful- having stuff like this does no favours for the profile of the wiki. Imagine if someone who found Wikination via Google was exploring the site and stumbled upon this... Frijoles333 TALK 19:23, June 3, 2015 (UTC) ::And what might some people who've lived under communism think if they stumble upon pages espousing communism? For many it is hateful and disrespectful to think of communism as good, let alone a matter to be discussed. Don't start applying your own moral compass to the wikia as if you are doing it for the wikia's good rather than to sate your own political desires. KunarianTALK 19:36, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :::I believe that's a faulty analogy, as communism is not per se evil, unlike the contents of this page. The aspects of 'communist' regimes (most of which, like China today, abandoned all but the pretence of communism quite quickly) that made them evil are absent from any pages related to communism on this site (one could potentially exclude MLPE from that, but that's essentially a parody :P). --Semyon 20:30, June 3, 2015 (UTC) Vile it is. But that is both evidence to the validity of the reprehension of the views of the UNS and acts as a record of history and further of what history we do not approve of. Remove the content by all means for Wikia's sake however to suggest we delete this from the wikia and the wikia's history is censorship and plainly wrong for future members of this wikia. For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf this book espouses wholly wrong views, however it is still on wikipedia and is still sold in stores. It is not there because wikipedia or because people in general support the views espoused therein but because it is part of history and further condemns itself with its content. I think we should keep it because it is that, a part of our history and part of the wikia. I think we must assume not that this is being used to espouse views outside the wikia, good faith as some might call it, but rather an extreme of the roleplaying side of the wikia. By all means add a million tons of hate for the book in the reception section on the page but do not delete it. And free speech in my opinion includes being against censorship, against censorship of this wikia's history and present. We are of course bound by wikia's guidelines but within that we should not censor our wikia's history. That is what I mean when I say free speech. RTP espouses views against gays and other characters on this wikia are exceedingly homophobic, shall we delete their pages and any content referencing towards these views? If you support the complete deletion of this page then I hope you have the principle to follow up requests to delete every other page that contains, roleplay or otherwise, views you don't like. I for one don't let petty things like this bother me. KunarianTALK 19:36, June 3, 2015 (UTC) Not going to read your text because this isn't an issue of free speech. This is an article that is not of high enough standards to be kept. It's not a useful article, as it doesn't fit with our country. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:56, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :So firstly you aren't going to read what I've written and instantly cast it off. Proving you're no better than the supposed racist who wrote this at being a close minded fool. If you had you might have read "And free speech in my opinion includes being against censorship, against censorship of this wikia's history and present. We are of course bound by wikia's guidelines but within that we should not censor our wikia's history. That is what I mean when I say free speech." :On your high standards, what are these? political? ethical? we don't have political or ethical standards on this wikia bar the constitution and wikia's own terms of use. And you say it doesn't fit with our country but I'm afraid it does. It is a clear insight into the mind of those of the UNS, who were and still are part of this country. And I wonder Time, why you aren't going after the articles which espouse that homosexual people shouldn't be allowed to marry or the ones where communism is espoused, despite how many millions it killed. To me communism is incredibly offensive. So will you delete CPL.nm? To you RTP must be offensive and therefore will you delete it? :The point is, you are being picky, there is no argument or line you have put that would apply to the wikia as a whole and only touch this page. KunarianTALK 20:12, June 3, 2015 (UTC) ::@not reading: because your points are irrelevant, and I only have one that I believe trumps all others you could make. I've read it now, though. History on this wiki is reversible. This is a page we all agree is vile. It should be removed. The page is NOT useful. I'm not offended by RTP, because they're a realistic occurrence. I'm also not pro deletion because I'm offended by it. It's because WE agree that WE don't want or need this page. This isn't an issue of free speech. We DO get to decide what's on the wiki, because this is a fictional place, not the real world, where I would agree with you. Why do we not keep vandalism or Goyou on the wiki in the name of free speech? Because it doesn't apply to a wiki! Not responding to anything else because you're wrong. :o —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:31, June 3, 2015 (UTC) The content is of course vile, so maybe those sections should be removed. But the fascist movement did exist in Lovia's history, so we shouldn't delete the page as a whole; that would be akin to the German government erasing records of the Holocaust. 77topaz (talk) 20:14, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :Agreed. KunarianTALK 20:19, June 3, 2015 (UTC) Again, comparing this work to Main Kampf is, I believe, a false analogy, as the latter is fictional and thus we can simply revert its existence; to pretend Mein Kampf never existed would by contrast be a terrible crime. With regard to keeping a record for future users, you do have a point, but such a record doesn't require the grisly details or to be in the mainspace. As for RTP, you again have a good point. As for censorship, the main thrust of your argument, it's an interesting topic. I believe we have a certain proprietorship of this wiki; if someone graffitis a swastika onto my front door, I don't censor when I paint over it, because my front door is not a suitable medium for such art. That was my point regarding Stormfront. It seems the consensus is that we remove the content sections. As for deletion, I am , most others are , a couple are , so the page will not be deleted. That's fine, I can implement that immediately. I submit we don't continue with this discussion, unless it can be done in a slightly more civil manner. --Semyon 20:30, June 3, 2015 (UTC) I think we should delete the photo as well. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:25, June 3, 2015 (UTC)